get_total_compensation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation, what data format it returns, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description only states an analytical purpose without operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single Korean sentence that's reasonably concise, but it's not front-loaded with the most critical information. While it doesn't waste words, it fails to prioritize operational details over analytical purpose, making it less effective for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain what the tool actually does operationally, what data it returns, and how it differs from similar compensation tools. The current description focuses on analytical outcomes rather than tool functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all three parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '전체 임원 보수 총액을 통한 보상 구조의 투명성과 집중도 리스크 분석' (Analysis of compensation structure transparency and concentration risk through total executive compensation amount) states a high-level analytical purpose but lacks a specific action verb. It doesn't clearly indicate whether this tool retrieves, calculates, or analyzes data, making it vague compared to sibling tools like get_executive_compensation_approved which have clearer retrieval purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like get_individual_compensation or get_executive_compensation_by_type, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.